Let voters elect judges

Friday

Feb 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Lawmakers who want to end judicial elections in favor of appointing judges are on the wrong track. Citizens should retain their constitutional right to vote on who gets on the bench. Injecting partisan politics and back-door shenanigans into the process won't improve it.

Lawmakers who want to end judicial elections in favor of appointing judges are on the wrong track. Citizens should retain their constitutional right to vote on who gets on the bench. Injecting partisan politics and back-door shenanigans into the process won't improve it.

Bill sponsor Anthony Williams, D-Philadelphia, claims merit selection of judges will ensure the integrity of the bench. He proposes a commission to nominate judge candidates from whom the governor would choose. The 15-member commission would include four people appointed by the governor, four appointed by the General Assembly and seven members of the public. Implementing a merit selection process would require changing the state constitution.

Supporters of the measure note that judicial candidates and judges running for retention often accept political contributions from lawyers and interest groups who might later appear before them, creating a conflict of interest. That's lamentable, but it's certainly not universal.

Then they cite cases of alleged corruption like that involving state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, now suspended. She's charged with seven counts of using public resources — her legislator sister's staff members' time and energy — during her 2009 election campaign. That has nothing to do with lawyers appearing in front of her.

That 42 states appoint rather than elect judges indicates that appointment offers some advantages. Candidates wouldn't have to raise money for a campaign, the very activity that raises perceptions that they are biased toward big supporters. And surveys have shown that voters often aren't familiar with candidates for statewide judicial positions.

But an appointment system only infuses more politics. By taking the choice away from voters, "merit" selection hands it over to people who already have power: governor, legislature. These are the very branches of government from which judges are supposed to be separate but equal. Appointment doesn't always work smoothly, either. The federal judicial appointment system has been so politically fraught in recent decades that a substantial number of positions remain vacant for months or years, while powerful members of Congress battle it out.

That's not to say that electing judges is devoid of politics. In Pennsylvania judicial candidates cross file as part of an effort to keep party politics out of the race. But the parties themselves often play a role in who runs and how much support he or she gets, so the process can remain political.

Still, citizens should resist ceding the choice of who serves on the bench to the politicians. Judicial candidates should run for office, using accomplishments, commitment and resources to convince voters that they are qualified and deserve the job.